Hate speech

[UndertheHalo]

In a lot of countries they have laws on the books restricting "hate speech" 

In Canada and the European Union nations for example much of the stuff we tolerate from white supremacists here in the US is criminalized language. 

I know that in the past the Supreme Court has ruled that under the 1st amendment much of what those places consider hate speech is protected.

Those types of laws have potential for all kinds of problems and represent quite a slippery slope.  But I do wonder is there any point where this kind of language can or should be banned ? I'm not sure I have any good opinion on it, but I think it's worth discussing.  Now I do know that we don't protect speech that can literally cause harm. Screaming fire in a crowded theatre for example. 

Thoughts ?

Edited August 15, 2017 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

My biggest concern is who and what get to define what hate speech is.  To me that is as scary as the feds sending a warrant to the protest organization.

Actually much scarier.

[Thomas]

I'm sure the current administration would love an erosion of 1st amendment rights. Seeing many on the left screaming for it makes me hurt on the inside.

[Jason]

If I don't like what someone is saying I ignore them. 

[red321]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

My biggest concern is who and what get to define what hate speech is.  To me that is as scary as the feds sending a warrant to the protest organization.

Actually much scarier.

I tend to agree with you, I think there is a gray area when it comes to "hate speech". Simply stating something awful and horrible doesn't necessarily qualify.

We are built on the foundation of free speech, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't suffer the consequences of their free speech.

If you go and stand in a crowd of people and start spewing hate speech...you have every right to. Just like they have every right to point out you are a fucking idiot.

And if you stand in a crowd and incite violence, there are consequences, which could include jail. If you stand in a crowd and start spewing vile and hatred at a person or segment of the population and violence occurs because of that, that's a much more complex discussion. 

 

[mtangelsfan]

48 minutes ago, red321 said:

I tend to agree with you, I think there is a gray area when it comes to "hate speech". Simply stating something awful and horrible doesn't necessarily qualify.

We are built on the foundation of free speech, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't suffer the consequences of their free speech.

If you go and stand in a crowd of people and start spewing hate speech...you have every right to. Just like they have every right to point out you are a fucking idiot.

And if you stand in a crowd and incite violence, there are consequences, which could include jail. If you stand in a crowd and start spewing vile and hatred at a person or segment of the population and violence occurs because of that, that's a much more complex discussion. 

 

Agreed

[floplag]

Saying another race or color is inferior is an opinion, however vile.
Saying we should kill them is another thing entirely.  
Directly threatening that person is another thing. 
We cant just preach free speech when we agree with it, people have the right to be asshats, until it becomes more than that.  Frankly i think thats something we should protect even if those words make our blood boil 

[Thomas]

/sigh

[wopphil]

Unreal. The liberals who call for such speech restriction are as fascist as the Nazis they oppose.

[UndertheHalo]

I don't think it's that black and white.  I don't think Canada is some dystopian restricted speech nightmare. 

[mtangelsfan]

The fact that is isn't black and white that makes it bad.  The fact that it is subjective means that the majority can dictate what kind of speech is "hate".

[Thomas]

So many people on social media saying that hate speech isn't protected by the Constitution. When did this this become a thing? It's remarkable. Is the ACLU even a thing any more? What happened? 

[Thomas]

27 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I don't think it's that black and white.  I don't think Canada is some dystopian restricted speech nightmare. 

We're not like most countries.  We'd fuck it up good. 

[Tank]

7 hours ago, Jason said:

If I don't like what someone is saying I ignore them. 

The older I get, the more true this becomes (though it's not always easy).

[Tank]

4 hours ago, floplag said:

Saying another race or color is inferior is an opinion, however vile.
Saying we should kill them is another thing entirely.  
Directly threatening that person is another thing. 
We cant just preach free speech when we agree with it, people have the right to be asshats, until it becomes more than that.  Frankly i think thats something we should protect even if those words make our blood boil 

Heard it said once that we are free to say what we like. However, we are not free from the consequences of what we say.

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, Thomas said:

We're not like most countries.  We'd fuck it up good. 

This point is compelling. 

[floplag]

9 hours ago, Tank said:

Heard it said once that we are free to say what we like. However, we are not free from the consequences of what we say.

Agreed, however ive always thought that rather contradictory, if there are repercussions for words, its not really free is it.    If those words incite, or create violence then i agree but simply saying something , regardless of what is said, and being punished for those words doesnt really feel free.  where does that lead?  prison time for opinions, sounds awful nazi-esque to me.  Its exaggeration i realize but words and opinions should not be punishable offenses unless they create something worse.  Im not sure that makes sense as its hard to qualify but a person should have the right to be an asshole, as long as it doesnt infringe on someone else.  
We say things all the time politically, i hate this president etc... is that punishable to voice an opinion?   Now "I want to kill this president" is a different matter. 
The part that bothers me most is show gets to decide what is, or isnt, hate speech.  These days it seems awful popular to say "all white people" thus and so.... without fear, but if the same were said about others its profiling, racist, and classified as hate.    We seem to have a large disconnect on consistency on the matter. 

[Adam]

Authoritarianism of any kind is awful

[Thomas]

14 hours ago, wopphil said:

Unreal. The liberals who call for such speech restriction are as fascist as the Nazis they oppose.

I got someone who supported this comic to acknowledge that they were wrong and that hate speech is indeed protected. I am a god. Not THE God. But a god.
 

[Tank]

13 hours ago, floplag said:

Agreed, however ive always thought that rather contradictory, if there are repercussions for words, its not really free is it.    If those words incite, or create violence then i agree but simply saying something , regardless of what is said, and being punished for those words doesnt really feel free.  where does that lead?  prison time for opinions, sounds awful nazi-esque to me.  Its exaggeration i realize but words and opinions should not be punishable offenses unless they create something worse.  Im not sure that makes sense as its hard to qualify but a person should have the right to be an asshole, as long as it doesnt infringe on someone else.  
We say things all the time politically, i hate this president etc... is that punishable to voice an opinion?   Now "I want to kill this president" is a different matter. 

when i think of free speech, i think of the ability to express an opinion without fear of prosecution, which seems germain to what the framers put together. the SCOTUS has helped refine the parameters of this by deciding you can't yell fire! in a crowded theater, etc. I can sit in front of my house with a sign that says "honk if you like trump" and be perfectly protected. if my sign says "honk if you want to assassinate trump", i can expect trouble from someone, maybe a legal issue or two to deal with as well as it could possibly constitute a threat. i'm not really sure how else to say it other than i have the liberty to express any opinion i want, but there can be repercussions depending on what i say or when i say it or who i say it to. is that still freedom of expression?

[Vegas Halo Fan]

On 8/15/2017 at 2:27 PM, mtangelsfan said:

My biggest concern is who and what get to define what hate speech is.  To me that is as scary as the feds sending a warrant to the protest organization.

Actually much scarier.

Can you imagine Trump defining it? He would include anyone who says anything against him or anything that he disagrees with, including news networks. This would have the potential of essentially scrapping the First Amendment, which is a scary proposition.

[Jason]

7 hours ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

Can you imagine Trump defining it? He would include anyone who says anything against him or anything that he disagrees with, including news networks. This would have the potential of essentially scrapping the First Amendment, which is a scary proposition.

Exactly this! This is another reason why limiting federal powers is a good thing. We never know who is going to be in charge.

[floplag]

10 hours ago, Tank said:

when i think of free speech, i think of the ability to express an opinion without fear of prosecution, which seems germain to what the framers put together. the SCOTUS has helped refine the parameters of this by deciding you can't yell fire! in a crowded theater, etc. I can sit in front of my house with a sign that says "honk if you like trump" and be perfectly protected. if my sign says "honk if you want to assassinate trump", i can expect trouble from someone, maybe a legal issue or two to deal with as well as it could possibly constitute a threat. i'm not really sure how else to say it other than i have the liberty to express any opinion i want, but there can be repercussions depending on what i say or when i say it or who i say it to. is that still freedom of expression?

To me, yes it is.  Expression is very different than incitement or threats.  You should be able to sat fuck trump, or i love trump, without having other people go out of their way to harm you or destroy you or your career.  When those words cross the line from expression, to intimidation , violence, or incitement to same, you have now infringed on others rights.  There is a marked difference between saying "Trump is an asshole", and "Trump is an asshole, we should kill him"
"

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

Exactly this! This is another reason why limiting federal powers is a good thing. We never know who is going to be in charge.

It is scary, but guess what, our leaders dont define it today, the media does, and we all know what side they are on which is why sleect group are considered evil and otehrs not for the same kinds of activities.

[Adam]

Tim Pool is my new favorite twitter follow. Give him a follow if you're a reasonable human.